Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 53
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,067
    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    I still don't get how WSA's must be managed as de facto wilderness. That's essentially circumventing the legislative process of congressionally mandating wilderness. IE getting wilderness designations without going through the proper steps.

    And if biking occurs somewhere, that by its very existence excludes the whole 'wilderness character' of the place. This shit is infuriating. And it seems like it's always the same assholes pushing it, winter or summer.

    I hate to say this but what it will take is for some brave soul(s) to get ticketed for riding in a WSA and take the USFS to court.

    And I think you would be very hard pressed to get ticketed for that very reason.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

    "Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Making the Bowl Great Again
    Posts
    13,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    I hate to say this but what it will take is for some brave soul(s) to get ticketed for riding in a WSA and take the USFS to court.

    And I think you would be very hard pressed to get ticketed for that very reason.
    What would you argue to contest the ticket, exactly?

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    17,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    I hate to say this but what it will take is for some brave soul(s) to get ticketed for riding in a WSA and take the USFS to court.

    And I think you would be very hard pressed to get ticketed for that very reason.
    Are you saying that if you ran across a USFS ranger on your bike in a prohibited area they wouldn't ticket you out of fear that you could challenge the ticket in court and potentially overturn the entire the entire bike ban? That seems far-fetched.

    How much enforcement actually occurs in these areas? I feel like enforcement, even as little as it is now, is only going to decline as more and more of the USFS budget is consumed by firefighting.

    Quote Originally Posted by evdog View Post
    There were some hiking groups trying to get horses banned from Wilderness in the Sierras a few years ago. Well, more specifically, their focus was on the commercial packing operations, on the basis that these operations were growing without oversight or regard for sustainability. Whoever this got elevated to in Congress killed it, saying horses have a historical basis for use in Wilderness and will be allowed to stay. So, I can take 25 head of horses in, but can't go in there by myself with my bike.
    U.S.o.f.A.

    United States of fat Asses

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by evdog View Post
    Unfortunately I don't think we'll get access to Wilderness. There is too much wildernut opposition, too many people who don't understand the issue but will be swayed by the "we need to protect it" and "bikes will run us off the trail" generalizations, and not nearly enough bikers who would want access to Wilderness and be willing to fight for it. Which, ironically, is exactly why bikes in Wilderness would not be a big deal in reality. Aside from a few easy to access places most would not see a lot of traffic. Most wilderness trails would be to much work and too hard to access for the vast majority of mountain bikers to want to ride. Just look at all the backcountry trails out there that are legal now but see little to no traffic.
    Let me offer a little cause for hope. The Scotchman Peaks Wilderness proposal was recently put up for an advisory vote in Bonner County, where it would reside. It was represented as a very popular proposal with widespread support, but one county commissioner wanted to know for sure. The county had voted their support, but pledged to follow the result, and Senator Risch, who had brought a bill previously, promised the same. It was voted down 54/46 and of the two commissioners who were on the ballot, the supporter lost his primary and the skeptic won his. Risch has promised not to propose it again and the county commissioners have passed a resolution calling for removal of the three RW's in the panhandle and another in support of an executive order to end the practice of managing RW as wilderness. It's a start.

    It's a little ironic, because the proposal had support from the local bike club and shop owners and there are no bike trails in the proposed area, but many people expressed surprise upon learning that you couldn't ride a bike in Wilderness. Most seem to have learned this by reading letters of support from the above mentioned bikers who said they supported it even though they wouldn't be allowed to ride there. A vocal group of hunters spoke out regularly about wanting to use game carts, though.

    This area leans Republican, but not very hard. I think what we saw was people smelling the stench of BS from the supporters (who claimed designation wouldn't change fire fighting but would protect against mining, for example) and when faced with obvious paradoxes like no bikes or carts, while mines are good to go, it struck the anti-federal government chord and drew people out for what would otherwise have been a pretty thinly attended primary election.

    The fact that Wilderness is not, as so often claimed, the gold standard of protection is something that needs to get out. Recreation Areas can offer as good or better protection thanks to broader support. Bonner County is currently at significant risk to a mine going in at one of the originally designated Wilderness Areas just upstream in Montana, (directly beneath a lake, of all things). So the fact that big W doesn't protect adequately against that may be easier to sell to people who already know that, but it only takes a small change in the political landscape to make bikes in WA's seem like a very reasonable possibility.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,067
    Are you saying that if you ran across a USFS ranger on your bike in a prohibited area they wouldn't ticket you out of fear that you could challenge the ticket in court and potentially overturn the entire the entire bike ban? That seems far-fetched.
    No I am saying if you ran across a USFS Wilderness Ranger in a WSA they would do everything they possibly could to not write you a citation.

    Why? Because with the right legal representation you could effectively challenge, "I still don't get how WSA's must be managed as de facto wilderness. That's essentially circumventing the legislative process of congressionally mandating wilderness. IE getting wilderness designations without going through the proper steps. "

    With the right counsel and $$$ you could mount a pretty good case. Especially with a history of prior use.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

    "Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"

  6. #31
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    People's Republic of OB
    Posts
    4,407
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    Let me offer a little cause for hope.
    Good info, thanks for the post.

    I've heard there is not much support in Congress or senate right now for new Wilderness designation due to the controversy surrounding the push for bike access, so hopefully there will be few new areas designated in the near future, government dysfunction notwithstanding. One of the higher ups at our local bike group spoke with someone high up in the Wilderness Society at a conference recently. That guy said the WS was seriously pissed over the bike access push and will be mounting a hard push to add as much RW as possible to every forest plan amendment that comes up. We have fought new RW off somewhat effectively in the local Socal forests but can't get involved in every forest's plan amendment. Yeah, that's where IMBA is supposed to step in, but.... Which brings us back to the earlier problem of RW and WSAs being managed as Wilderness.

    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    many people expressed surprise upon learning that you couldn't ride a bike in Wilderness.
    That is the reaction I get from most people - coworkers, non-biking friends, random people I talk to. Seems the only groups who are generally aware of no bikes in Wilderness are land managers, people who hate bikes, and people who ride bikes. Which unfortunately makes it easy to get support for Wilderness from the general public because who doesn't want to protect that killer backcountry area? And when bikes do come up, without fail the issue gets painted as the wilderness is going to get overrun by bikes, just like so many front country trail networks. Need to hammer away that there are different types of mountain bikers and only a minority of them will make the effort and enjoy riding backcountry trails in Wilderness. And always ask the haters which trails, specifically, are they concerned about. The anti-bike argument gets picked apart fast when you start talking specific trails. Get the word out!

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by evdog View Post
    .... Which brings us back to the earlier problem of RW and WSAs being managed as Wilderness.
    Strange bedfellows and all that, but the USFS is part of the executive branch and an executive order to end that practice would fix it. I don't think the campaign to get attention for the issue started here, but I don't know how far it's gotten yet. (Maybe someone can frame it in terms of all that tourism money that's sneaking into Canada.) The Wilderness Society would do well to consider what they stand to lose if all of the existing RW/WSA is turned back to multi-use at the stroke of a pen, though. In R1 alone that's a huge amount of land. But if this ruling holds up the strategy of pushing for RW everywhere is going to spread fast so I don't see another choice for our side. It's a shame about the fanatics at IMBA and the WS because HR1349 would instantly put us all on the same side.

    Quote Originally Posted by evdog View Post
    And always ask the haters which trails, specifically, are they concerned about. The anti-bike argument gets picked apart fast when you start talking specific trails. Get the word out!
    Solid point. These trails are at far more risk of disappearing from disuse than overuse. We need a way to scale this so we aren't arguing about every single trail/area etc. YouTube?

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    17,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    No I am saying if you ran across a USFS Wilderness Ranger in a WSA they would do everything they possibly could to not write you a citation.

    Why? Because with the right legal representation you could effectively challenge, "I still don't get how WSA's must be managed as de facto wilderness. That's essentially circumventing the legislative process of congressionally mandating wilderness. IE getting wilderness designations without going through the proper steps. "

    With the right counsel and $$$ you could mount a pretty good case. Especially with a history of prior use.
    Still seems like quite a longshot to me. If you're that confident they won't ticket you though, might as well go ride the shit out of it.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    155
    Anyone know the status of Willow Creek or Palisades? Covered in downed trees?

    Thanks in advance.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    Still seems like quite a longshot to me. If you're that confident they won't ticket you though, might as well go ride the shit out of it.
    Many of us already do,. Between the bulk of the USFS budget going to wildland fire and the vast areas of Forest and the consolidation of Ranger Districts it is rare to see a Wilderness Ranger or any other USFS personnel.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

    "Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Making the Bowl Great Again
    Posts
    13,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Terrapin Ben View Post
    Anyone know the status of Willow Creek or Palisades? Covered in downed trees?

    Thanks in advance.
    Ask on the Bitterroot Backcountry Bicyclists' Facebook page. You will get an answer quickly.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Missoula
    Posts
    2,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Terrapin Ben View Post
    Anyone know the status of Willow Creek or Palisades? Covered in downed trees?

    Thanks in advance.
    Most recent trailforks report says snow and trees. Appears trail work day up there is july 21st.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Retardbumville
    Posts
    854
    Too many fucks everywhere, is why I care. Fucking cyclists.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Norcal
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    Many of us already do,. Between the bulk of the USFS budget going to wildland fire and the vast areas of Forest and the consolidation of Ranger Districts it is rare to see a Wilderness Ranger or any other USFS personnel.
    That’s for sure

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Livingston, MT
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    Many of us already do,. Between the bulk of the USFS budget going to wildland fire and the vast areas of Forest and the consolidation of Ranger Districts it is rare to see a Wilderness Ranger or any other USFS personnel.
    Word. They clear very little, they maintain almost nothing depending on the district and their budget is almost non existent. We have 1 LEO for the entire Yellowstone District and he cares fuck all about bikes (he is a mountain biker himself Enforcement is a joke with the USFS.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Southeast New York
    Posts
    11,766
    This thread was linked by the Sustainable Trails Coalition on their FB page last night. We're famous 😀

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,067
    yeah, fuck those guys, all they want is more access.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

    "Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gapper Alley
    Posts
    97
    There are a hundred or two fewer down trees than last week. Keep your eyes open for the comment period and look to the Bitterroot Backcountry Cyclists for advise. I believe Lost Trail Bike Fest is a fundraiser for them, consider helping out any way you can or spreading the word.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P7080057_rs.jpg 
Views:	43 
Size:	1,014.5 KB 
ID:	240995
    In the mean time, it's game on across montana. Helena Lewis&Clark NF is in a comment period ending Sept 6th. Alternative D makes the south hills "primitive recreation", which I'm pretty sure would take out the popular Grizzly Gulch trails. Spread the word and don't let your guard down, the Hateful Old Hikers Association is everywhere!

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Last Best City in the Last Best Place
    Posts
    7,270
    Quote Originally Posted by livefreerdie View Post
    Helena Lewis&Clark NF is in a comment period ending Sept 6th. Alternative D makes the south hills "primitive recreation", which I'm pretty sure would take out the popular Grizzly Gulch trails.
    WTF? No way that's gonna happen. Better comment though. I wouldn't care if they made the front side of Mt. Helena off limits, that's a stupid place to bike anyway. But that's a city park, not NF.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Paper St. Soap Co.
    Posts
    3,303
    Quote Originally Posted by livefreerdie View Post
    There are a hundred or two fewer down trees than last week.
    Which trail got cleared?

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    4,579

    Game on in the Bitterroot.

    This really bums me out. We spent several days last year riding in the Bitterroot and it was hands down one of our favorite trips in recent years. We’ve sort of kinda even considered moving to the area. Sheesh.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Livingston, MT
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by livefreerdie View Post
    There are a hundred or two fewer down trees than last week. Keep your eyes open for the comment period and look to the Bitterroot Backcountry Cyclists for advise. I believe Lost Trail Bike Fest is a fundraiser for them, consider helping out any way you can or spreading the word.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P7080057_rs.jpg 
Views:	43 
Size:	1,014.5 KB 
ID:	240995
    In the mean time, it's game on across montana. Helena Lewis&Clark NF is in a comment period ending Sept 6th. Alternative D makes the south hills "primitive recreation", which I'm pretty sure would take out the popular Grizzly Gulch trails. Spread the word and don't let your guard down, the Hateful Old Hikers Association is everywhere!
    Nice work Bitterroot Backcountry Cyclists!! Thanks for the heads up on Helena trails in jeopardy. Not sure where the Montana I grew up in went? It’s quickly becoming the state NO when it comes to recreation.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,274
    Those sheds on their page were impressive. Thanks for the good work!

    Know its early but definitely hitting shuttlefest this year after missing last year.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,067
    http://www.kbzk.com/story/38605203/g...ss-study-areas

    BOZEMAN - Representative Greg Gianforte has introduced two bills to Congress that would eliminate close to 700,000 acres of Montana land as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs).

    Back in the 1970’s, certain wildlands were designated as WSAs as a way of protecting the area without solely classifying it as wilderness. According to the Montana Wilderness Association, 44 areas in the state are classified as WSAs and are managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

    "The Wilderness Study Areas were not going to be with us forever, but that Congress would do its job and make a decision on all of the recommendations and work that was done,” said BLM employee Rick Waldrup.

    Gianforte hopes to make these lands more accessible. He says if his two bills pass, the BLM and U.S.F.S will be able to designate the next steps for 700,000 acres of land, whether that be mining, oil drilling, logging, or only motor vehicle use.

    "Well, these wilderness study areas have placed thousands of acres of land in limbo for almost forty years. So, when I got a request from the state legislature and then letters from county commissioners I knew I had to act to increase public access to our public lands,” said Gianforte.

    "Absolutely it could cause a problem. If we went and looked today at some of the unspoiled country left in the lower 48, I think. And certainly a lot of these areas deserve some protection,” said Waldrup.

    Others disagree with Gianforte; Beaverhead County Commissioners addressed a letter to him stating:

    "The Beaverhead County Commissioners believe that the over 10 million acres of wilderness and national parks within one day’s drive of Dillon are ample in meeting ecological, environmental, and human needs for wilderness in this region. We therefore urge the agencies to forego an agenda of adding acres to wilderness for the sake of adding acres to wilderness."

    The bills have made it through the initial hearing and will be put through a markup before landing on the House floor. If the bills are passed, 29 WSAs would lose protection. Gianforte says all of the areas of land he hopes to release from protection have been recommended by the BLM and U.S. Forest Service as non-suitable for wilderness.
    It is long past time for the hard line environmentalists to come to grips with reality.

    Compromise isn't a dirty word and getting Mountain Bikers as part of the movement would be in their best interests. Gianforte is an asshole on every other issue but on this one?????

    I still won't vote for him.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

    "Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Making the Bowl Great Again
    Posts
    13,779
    I would eat Benny Profane's ass before I would vote for Gianforte.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •